 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
absent |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Nov 26, 2004 - 07:59 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 119
Status: Offline
|
|
sorry to stick my nose in, but any team that is forced to field 5 players with 6337 statline is not going to become unstoppable at high TR, against opponents who are going to have tackle and such at that higher TR for your vamps, and MB and such for your AV7 turds (and that is what they are!  ) I think the official vamp team is most definitly OVER balanced (i.e. weak) and not worth complaining about, if you lose to them often you are playing vs a VERY good coach, just be happy he doesn't take WE or skaven, and just butcher/ruin the league. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 26, 2004 - 09:41 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
absent wrote: sorry to stick my nose in, but any team that is forced to field 5 players with 6337 statline is not going to become unstoppable at high TR, against opponents who are going to have tackle and such at that higher TR for your vamps
Well the notion of taking more vampires than thralls is scary to say the least! Like I said it only takes one hungry vampire to really ruin your team's day!
absent wrote: and MB and such for your AV7 turds (and that is what they are! )
We affectionately referred to them as "the meat bags" in our game! 
absent wrote: I think the official vamp team is most definitly OVER balanced (i.e. weak) and not worth complaining about, if you lose to them often you are playing vs a VERY good coach, just be happy he doesn't take WE or skaven, and just butcher/ruin the league.
Well I am quickly noticing how hard they are to play, but I am up for the challenge! I tend to agree that they could be toned down a bit - I mean most of my players have human stats but the armour of wood elves. Then I am afraid to move my best players for fear that they are going to eat the weaker ones! I mean with AV 7 the thralls get hurt by the other team easily enough without the vamps taking bites out of them.
The thought had occured to me that maybe I should just retire the team after this game as it was my first and then start with a more "normal" team, but I think I will stick it out. For one I will enjoy the challenge, and two, I want to give other coaches a chance to play against something different. (Also I love the models!!)
Maybe I should change my name to Spazz-fang? 
Spazz |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2004 - 08:29 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Your mistake was starting with 3 vamps and 12 players. Had you started with 2 vamps and 11 players, you could have had either 5 rerolls and FF7, or 4 rerolls, an apothecary and FF9. With one less vamp, you would have made fewer Bloodthirst rolls, and with 1 or 2 extra rerolls per half, you would have failed hardly any of them. Rerolls are truly the way to build an unstoppable vampire team.
I would even have started the team with 1 vamp and added a 6th reroll, but then i'm known to be very reroll happy, especially in long leagues. Better to buy them now than to pay double for them later, and with more vamps coming in, you know you'll need them eventually! |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2004 - 11:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Actually I did modify it so that I had:
3 vampires - 330K
8 thralls - 320K
4 rerolls - 280K
7 FF - 70K
I agree with you in that the extra rerolls would have been nice, but what I am finding in playing them, is that the team is named the "Vampire" team for a reason! The "meat sacks" are not that good, and generally fill in gaps and get into spots where the vampires need to go in case they are OFAB. this is not to say that I am not trying to use them for blocks, etc., but I am finding with their low armour, I have to use them as cautiously as Wood Elves, without enjoying the benefit of their agility. I rely on the vampires to do the brunt of the work, both moving the ball and making the effective blocks.
The vampires are a double edged sword - they injure your own players occasionally, but they have the great stat-line which makes the invaluable.
Your theoretical proposal of a one vampire team would never stand the test. IMHO. The "meat bags" are just not good enough. Even last night Bikerbob was saying that I should have splurged for four, instead of the three. More play and practise will tell for sure. You disagree? Start a team in a league and prove me wrong!
Spazz |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
juck101 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2004 - 11:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 04, 2004
England
Posts: 74
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Spazzfist wrote:
... The tricky thing is figuring out the nuances for the use of the hypnotic gaze. So far it has proved very useful
Ok not same game at all but in 3rd ed the vamp gaze with ability to move made them unstopable. Very nice with three on pitch gives new options to turns not seen by any other team - sure some people must have started to get into it.
I would say for my money as the vamps are am eratic bunch the hyp gaze is actually essentail for some games. Busting a cage a walking in wth 4/4 players potentially is far more scary than a leap stripball player. Maybe not every turn but would expect top vamp players to have some nice special plays with gaze.
Not sure if even on freebooter now (sorry not kept up) but straight armour roll from the star is another great skill. Vs a blodge advanced sidestep type player the ability to stroll up and roll AV is very powerfull too. 3vamps with fangs crushed my wardancers with ease and nulified a much higher rated side - but its only some rosters that would develop this.
--------
more i think the more i need to get a vamp team |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2004 - 02:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Spazzfist wrote:
Your theoretical proposal of a one vampire team would never stand the test. IMHO. The "meat bags" are just not good enough. Even last night Bikerbob was saying that I should have splurged for four, instead of the three. More play and practise will tell for sure. You disagree? Start a team in a league and prove me wrong!
It wouldn't be very good short term but then again, no vampire team would. The point is that vampire teams are great long term, so you want to get there as soon as possible. Buying the rerolls before they cost double is part of that plan. The plan is to play as many games as possible and buy as many vampires as possible before the playoffs start, with the rerolls already in the bag at the start of the season.
And yes, i have played vampires before, for about 20+ games. The team looked very different back then but the basic principle stands. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
Last edited by Zombie on Nov 28, 2004 - 09:25 PM; edited 2 times in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2004 - 04:12 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Spazzfist wrote: Well to some extent I question the legitimacy of FUMBBL from what I have heard about the "randomness" of the dice rolls.
Galak got it spot on. There is nothing wrong with the random number generation in FUMBBL.
Zombie wrote: I wouldn't call Fumble Blood Bowl. Sorry, doesn't count. We're talking the real face to face thing here.
Why? The only reason you can sensibly argue about FUMBBL stats being invalid is because of the Open League nature of most games. Given that most leagues don't play Open that's an issue. Other than that the rules are practically the same as ftf leagues.
The huge advantage FUMBBL does have in this discussion is that you can pretty much ensure that if Vampires were broken lots of people there (hungry power gamers that they are : would have exploited it. Individual leagues are generally poor at producing that sort of information because individual skill makes a huge difference. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2004 - 04:28 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Fumbbl :
- Too many games per team, and no limit of games per season.
- You can choose who you play against, which makes it easier for agility teams and harder for teams with lots of dirty players and/or mutations.
- There is none of the grudges and off game discussion that affects the in game play.
- People don't take the time to sit down and play the game properly. They're too eager to get to the next one.
- And so on.
Fumbbl is not Blood Bowl. It's a game yes, but it's not the same game. We're talking about Blood Bowl here. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2004 - 09:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Doubleskulls wrote: Galak got it spot on. There is nothing wrong with the random number generation in FUMBBL.
And I said that I did not want to hijack this thread with discussions of FUMBBL.
Let's get back on topic shall we?
Zombie - you've played 20+ games, what lineup did you use, what did you find worked well in terms of strategy?
Did you go with the one vamp that you suggested? Then how did the meat sacks fare on their own?
I just find it hard to swallow that the team should be based around trying to limit the number of OFAB rolls - to the point where you limit the number of key players! I mean in another thread people speak of having fewer line-elves in a starting wood elf team and more position players for their skills. Surely, the same should be the case for this team? I mean, sure the vamps will cause some trouble for their team, but the law of probability says that none of them should be lasting.
Not the best team out there to be sure, but I am playing to have fun with this one - somehting different. But I would still like to know how to play them as well as I can.
At 20+ games, Zombie, you are the most experienced Vamp coach I know of, even if it was an older ruleset you played by. I would appreciate your input.
Spazz |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
KarlLagerbottom |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2004 - 10:00 PM
|
|
Joined: May 25, 2004
Undisclosed
Posts: 1148
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Spazz-
In "normal" leagues, and I am not currently in a "Normal" league unfortunately...anyway...my general philosophy in league play is to go heavy on linemen early to force them to progress. I then add the "Skill" players as I go to supplement the developing Lineman core.
For example, I had a Dwarf team of 12 Longbeards...I pleyed 80% of the season with that roster and then took the Blitzers,Runners, Slayers as the season wound down. I won that league. Why? Because the Agility 2 guys were forced to handle the ball and score TD's and get the SPP that might have been wasted on the guys who already have the ball handling skills. I then had a stronger supporting cast and was able to hire the Blitzers/Runners to handle the ball in the Playoffs.
I was around .500 with the Longbeard Team then picked-up momentum as the season came to a close.
I realize that the Thrall's don't have block to start, and have an AV of 7. However, if you focus on forcing them to block and score...you will be better off in the long run.
-Rob (At least I think so. )
Edit: Maybe start with Dirty Player on a Thrall and get the numbers advantage. Then gang-up on the opponents weaker players with "Real" blocks trying to pile-up CAS points. Again...you are going to struggle early on anyway...why not just forget about the ball for the most part and concentrate onm decimating your opponent. Don't just let them score, but once it gets to a point where you really have to press to stop the TD. Just take the 4 or 5 easy blocks that will probably be there for you in thge middle of the field. Most people that I play will leave you some nice fat block in the middle of the field to shield the ball carrier about to score. Fine...take what they give you. Conceded the TD and pound away in the middle. If everything else goes well...maybee march one guy down towards the endzone to force his hand.
Whats the worst that can happen? He scores and kicks to you....a fresh LOS to pound on. |
_________________
Karl Lagerbottom - Dwarf Blocker of Renown
NAF Member #5236
---
 
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2004 - 10:13 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Spazzfist wrote: Zombie - you've played 20+ games, what lineup did you use, what did you find worked well in terms of strategy?
Did you go with the one vamp that you suggested? Then how did the meat sacks fare on their own?
That was back in 3rd ed, i think somewhere around 1995 or 1996. Back then, the team had a vampire lord (same stats and cost as the star, no negatives, can earn SPPs), up to 12 other vamps (6448 Off for a bite, Regenerate, Hypnotic gaze) and thralls same as now.
The vampire lord got to do most of the stuff, but the thralls got their fair share as well. The other vamps didn't do all that much. I started with few vamps and lots of rerolls and didn't regret it one bit.
Quote: I just find it hard to swallow that the team should be based around trying to limit the number of OFAB rolls - to the point where you limit the number of key players! I mean in another thread people speak of having fewer line-elves in a starting wood elf team and more position players for their skills. Surely, the same should be the case for this team? I mean, sure the vamps will cause some trouble for their team, but the law of probability says that none of them should be lasting.
Anyone who knows the slightest bit about wood elves will tell you that in any league that lasts more than 6 games, you should start with 10 line-elves and 2 rerolls. That's a set in stone standard for the team that's been known for ages. Just look at the best ever Blood Bowl strategy guide ever written, the Eclectic Elf, for the perfect example of that.
The same can be said about this team, and even more so, since :
1- There's more use for the rerolls because of Bloodthirst.
2- There's less use for positional players (especially in high numbers) because of Bloodthirst. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 27, 2004 - 11:23 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
I found (with the 2 vamp roster) that by the time you can afford to buy the 3rd/4th/5th and 6th vamp, the original ones should already have a starting skill, in this cse Pro (unless Stat/Double). With the Pro it's not so much of a problem with re-rolls.
I think with 5 (or more re-rolls), I'd be happy to field 3 vamps at one, as long as 2 of them have Pro. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2004 - 03:38 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| The goal of course is to eventually field all 6 vamps at once! Hence the many rerolls. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2004 - 07:04 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: That was back in 3rd ed, i think somewhere around 1995 or 1996. Back then, the team had a vampire lord (same stats and cost as the star, no negatives, can earn SPPs), up to 12 other vamps (6448 Off for a bite, Regenerate, Hypnotic gaze) and thralls same as now.
The vampire lord got to do most of the stuff, but the thralls got their fair share as well. The other vamps didn't do all that much. I started with few vamps and lots of rerolls and didn't regret it one bit.
So your advice is almost 10 years old? And what is more, it sounds like the V Lord did all of the work for your team, who is now no longer available for the team.
Sorry Zombie but I would like to hear practical advice from somebody who is a bit more up to date and has played the team in it's current incarnation.
Anyone out there?
Spazz |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 28, 2004 - 09:26 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Zombie wrote: And yes, i have played vampires before, for about 20+ games. The team looked very different back then but the basic principle stands.
What part of that didn't you understand? After i posted this, you asked for my advice. If you don't want it, don't ask for it!
I try to be helpful and you just waste my time... |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
